ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board

  • To: "Stéphane_Van_Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board
  • From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 06:15:44 -0700
  • Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.4.07

Looks good to me. If there is opposition to sending that message then I
suggest a revised message like this:

----------
The Board has received the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support
Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report which was sent to it
by ALAC. I understand that this report has not yet been approved by
ALAC.

I wish to highlight the fact that the GNSO Council has not approved this
report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it.

The GNSO is one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG and I
am keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report
that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it.

I believe this report is for information purposes only and not intended
to initiate any Board action at this time.

I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey this message to the
Board.

Stéphane Van Gelder
GNSO Council Chair
---------

Tim 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board
From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 7:58 am
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi all,

I've tried to make a note of the comments so far and adapt my draft as
required.


I've taken the references to the dates out and added Wolf's suggested
sentence.


Please let me know what you think.


Stéphane








Dear Peter,

The Board has received the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support
Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report which was sent to it
by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by
ALAC.


The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved
this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it.


As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is
keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that
it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it.


This report is for information purposes only and not intended to
initiate any Board action at this time.


I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's
message to the Board.


Best,


Stéphane Van Gelder
GNSO Council Chair





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>